linux-kernel - Re: Linux-4.X-rcY patches can't be applied with git?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFy2d0OALxWD4YK-oKFDLm-i5mNrKpA5Z_VWAUgax63g5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:10:30 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>
Cc:     Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: Linux-4.X-rcY patches can't be applied with git?

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org> wrote:
>
> The benefit of tarballs and patches from a distribution standpoint is
> purely size.

I wonder if you wouldn't be better off just generating your own diffs.

If you know the other end uses "git apply", then not only can you use
"--binary", but you can also enable rename detection.

That will often shrink the diffs a *lot*.

So for _me_, the primary use of patches is for non-git people.

They are hopefully rare by now, but quite frankly, if they go away as
an issue, then the solution for me isn't "start using fancier patches
that rely on git", but "don't even bother with tar-balls and patches
at all".

See?

But if you want to see patches as a distribution format for a distro,
then your issues are different, and you may well want to use
"--binary" and "-M" to generate patches.

It's just that your reasons to use patches sound very different from
_my_ reasons to use patches..

                Linus